I would take it even further. Download a good audio converter and transcode one of your favorite 24 bit files to 320kbps MP3 (LAME). I A/B'ed entire albums for hours and could not find a difference.

The benefit often comes from the fact that some producers take more time to master their "high-res" files. Convert the better mastered file to MP3, and see if you can hear the difference between it and FLAC/DSD/etc

hi-res files properly mastered will always sound better and you need not use a hearing tube to appreciate that.

the problem i know there are many low quality Flacs which often are made from upsampling mp3 320kbs which is most dumb thing i heard but quite a few dudes do this :-( you need use trusted quality downloads or use good software to rip your collection.

a well resolving system will also most likely will make audible differences but perhaps not in the way you would expect. i also thought there is no difference if you burn Flac or Mp3 from a music CD. unfortunately for me that was not true and i had huge mp3 collection for which i had to do download and reburn to Flacs. you right Flac will not wow you but in good system you feel better frequency range and blacker space on Flac material compared to mp3, not miles ahead but still noticeable enough for my ears. if you used vinyl setup before you may understand what i mean.

however i agree that there is no audible differences between Flac and Wav files, no difference at all that i could hear in subtleys.Edited by Gintaras - 8/27/13 at 12:15pm

I would take it even further. Download a good audio converter and transcode one of your favorite 24 bit files to 320kbps MP3 (LAME). I A/B'ed entire albums for hours and could not find a difference.

The benefit often comes from the fact that some producers take more time to master their "high-res" files. Convert the better mastered file to MP3, and see if you can hear the difference between it and FLAC/DSD/etc

I'd probably take you up on that one. I think I can generally hear the difference between a hi-rez format and even 320kbps MP3. A lot of it depends on the resolution of your equipment. I'll give it try blind and let you know.

I'd probably take you up on that one. I think I can generally hear the difference between a hi-rez format and even 320kbps MP3. A lot of it depends on the resolution of your equipment. I'll give it try blind and let you know.

Please do. It was a revelation to me. I have so much more space on my devices now. What I do is buy the hi-res files, convert them to 320 MP3 to load on my DAPs, then put the FLACs on an external HD for archiving.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gintaras

hi-res files properly mastered will always sound better and you need not use a hearing tube to appreciate that..

Try it out Ginny. You may be surprised. Have your wife help switch between the hi-res file and the 320 kbps mp3 you made from it.

Please do. It was a revelation to me. I have so much more space on my devices now. What I do is buy the hi-res files, convert them to 320 MP3 to load on my DAPs, then put the FLACs on an external HD for archiving.

Try it out Ginny. You may be surprised. Have your wife help switch between the hi-res file and the 320 kbps mp3 you made from it.

I had my entire CD collection of thousands of CD's ripped to .wav and 320 mp3 last year. Trust me, I can hear the difference. Just haven't done the same thing with DSD because I just started with it about a month ago. My guess is the difference will be even more apparent. Tell us about your system.

Eke, mate, as much as i wish to agree i cannot. I had 500GB of mp3 and I still use some and have same albums in Flac now, with good copy Flac there is no way back, i really wish you right on this because it could save me money and time.

perhaps portable is less to show you differences but my front end clearly screams for Flac and does not feel excited about Mp3.

what i agree is mp3 burned at max rate will sound very nice and perhaps will make many listeners happy, but Flacs can make you even happier when you go to truly resolving system, not day and night but still something that puts me in love for hires music.

Eke, mate, as much as i wish to agree i cannot. I had 500GB of mp3 and I still use some and have same albums in Flac now, with good copy Flac there is no way back, i really wish you right on this because it could save me money and time.

perhaps portable is less to show you differences but my front end clearly screams for Flac and does not feel excited about Mp3.

what i agree is mp3 burned at max rate will sound very nice and perhaps will make many listeners happy, but Flacs can make you even happier when you go to truly resolving system, not day and night but still something that puts me in love for hires music.

Eke, mate, as much as i wish to agree i cannot. I had 500GB of mp3 and I still use some and have same albums in Flac now, with good copy Flac there is no way back, i really wish you right on this because it could save me money and time.

perhaps portable is less to show you differences but my front end clearly screams for Flac and does not feel excited about Mp3.

what i agree is mp3 burned at max rate will sound very nice and perhaps will make many listeners happy, but Flacs can make you even happier when you go to truly resolving system, not day and night but still something that puts me in love for hires music.

I'm not. I've conducted the experiments using downloads from 2L, hdtracks, and others. My equipment included iems like the 1P2 and other world class phones to eliminate other bottlenecks. I did it across a variety of amps and DACs. Conversion was done via dbpoweramp using LAME the lame MP3 codec.

Try the experiment G. Take your favorite high-res track and convert it to MP3 320. Then put both on your AK or whatever system you choose. Have your wife or friend switch between them to see if you can identify which is which. I couldn't.

I'm not. I've conducted the experiments using downloads from 2L, hdtracks, and others. My equipment included iems like the 1P2 and other world class phones to eliminate other bottlenecks. I did it across a variety of amps and DACs. Conversion was done via dbpoweramp using LAME the lame MP3 codec.

Try the experiment G. Take your favorite high-res track and convert it to MP3 320. Then put both on your AK or whatever system you choose. Have your wife or friend switch between them to see if you can identify which is which. I couldn't.

I've certainly never been able to tell the difference. I occasionally dl well mastered albums in 16 bit flac, but besides that I'm an mp3 kind of guy.

I remember a while back there was a "see if you can tell the difference" thread, and there was a SR-009 user who could not tell the difference between 320CBR and Flac in the sample provided. All of the blind tests that I've ever read have shown just the same.

Llloyd, it depends what you want to hear, subtleys are very interesting how they work, try female vocals with less busy music to see ... one area which gets interesting to analyze is the level of refinement in trebles, you get bit more full note and ease in treble and this helps female vocal fluidity in mid range, if my English is enough to describe this phenomenon :-)

Hmm, i wonder. What generation are those who can hear no difference between compressed and non compressed? I know I can but then I spent most of my life listening to analog sources or CD. I wonder how many how cannot hear a difference have grown up with music downloaded at low bit rates and have never really heard for an extended time period non compressed music?

For me the differences between MP3 and CD are night and day in terms of emotional involvement and life. I have yet to listen to a compressed file that does not sound lifeless.

Also, I wonder how many who listen to MP3 and think it fine listen with bass heavy headphones or use EQ? Both those can hide the difference I find.

I guess though in this day and age of fast download speeds and cheap memory why anyone would not want the purist file possible, I find that the most worrying of all of this!Edited by ianmedium - 8/27/13 at 1:38pm

Hmm, i wonder. What generation are those who can hear no difference between compressed and non compressed? I know I can but then I spent most of my life listening to analog sources or CD. I wonder how many how cannot hear a difference have grown up with music downloaded at low bit rates and have never really heard for an extended time period non compressed music?

For me the differences between MP3 and CD are night and day in terms of emotional involvement and life. I have yet to listen to a compressed file that does not sound lifeless.

Also, I wonder how many who listen to MP3 and think it fine listen with bass heavy headphones or use EQ? Both those can hide the difference I find.

I guess though in this day and age of fast download speeds and cheap memory why anyone would not want the purist file possible, I find that the most worrying of all of this!

It's not a generational issue. It's a matter of there being differences in the files that are audible to human ears. I'm not talking about a red book master vs a 24 bit master. I'm talking about taking the 24 bit master, converting it to LAME 320, then listening for differences between it and the original file.